SUPPLEMENTA
HUMANISTICA LOVANIENSIA XXXII
SUPPLEMENTA HUMANISTICA LOVANIENSIA
Editors: Prof. Dr. Gilbert Tournoy (General Editor) Dr. Godelieve Tournoy-Thoen
Prof. Dr. Dirk Sacré
Editorial Correspondence: gilbert.tournoy@arts.kuleuven.be Seminarium Philologiae Humanisticae Blijde-Inkomststraat 21 (Box 3316) B – 3000 Leuven (Belgium)
This publication was made possible with the financial support of PEGASUS Limited
For the Promotion of Neo-Latin Studies
THE EARLY MODERN CULTURES OF NEO-LATIN DRAMA
Edited by Philip FORD and Andrew TAYLOR SUPPLEMENTA
HUMANISTICA LOVANIENSIA XXXII
LEUVEN UNIVERSITY PRESS 2013
© Leuven University Press / Universitaire Pers Leuven / Presses Universitaires de Louvain, Minderbroedersstraat 4, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)
All rights reserved. Except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated datafile or made public in any way whatsoever without the express prior written consent of the publishers.
ISBN 978 90 5867 926 0 D/2013/1869/1
NUR: 635-694
Table of ConTenTs
— Philip Ford and Andrew Taylor, Introduction 7
— Olivier Pédeflous, Ravisius Textor’s School Drama and its Links to Pedagogical Literature in Early Modern France 19
— Carine Ferradou, George Buchanan’s Sacred Latin
Tragedies Baptistes and Iephthes: What Place for Humankind
in the Universe? 41
— Elia Borza, La traduction de tragédies grecques: Alessandro Pazzi de’ Medici et les problèmes liés à la métrique 63
— Howard B. Norland, John Foxe’s Apocalyptic Comedy,
Christus Triumphans 75
— Jeanine De Landtsheer, Lambertus Schenckelius’s
Tragoedia(e) Sanctae Catharinae 85
— Michiel Verweij, The Terentius Christianus at Work:
Cornelius Schonaeus as a Playwright 95
— Joaquín Pascual Barea, School Progymnasmata and Latin Drama: thesis, refutatio, confirmatio and laus in the Dialogue on the Conception of Our Lady (1578) by the Spanish Jesuit Bartholomaeus Bravo (1553 or 1554–1607) 107
— Judi Loach, Performing in Latin in Jesuit-run Colleges in Mid- to Late-17th-Century France: Why, and with what
Consequences? 113
— Jan Bloemendal, Similarities, Dissimilarities and Possible Relations Between Early Modern Latin Drama and Drama in
the Vernacular 141
— Cressida Ryan, An Ignoramus about Latin? The Importance of Latin Literatures to George Ruggle’s Ignoramus 159
— Sarah Knight, ‘Et spes et ratio studiorum in Caesare
tantum’: Robert Burton and Patronage 175
— Veronika Coroleu Oberparleiter, Simon Rettenpacher’s
Comedy Votorum discordia 189
— Arthur Eyffinger, ‘The Unacknowledged Legislators of Mankind’: Greek Playwrights as Moral Guidance to Hugo
Grotius’s Social Philosophy 203
— Index nominum 219
Michiel Verweij
The terentius Christianus aT Work:
CornelIus sChonaeus as a PlayWrIghT
Among the authors of school drama Cornelius Schonaeus stands out for various reasons. Where most schoolmasters wrote only one or two plays, he wrote seventeen, and where most school plays have come down in a single edition, his work knew a lasting success until the end of the 18th century, a success which is suggested by the honorary title of his collected plays: Terentius Christianus. In view of this situation it is to be wondered that the dramatic and literary aspects of his work have been neglected almost entirely.
Cornelius Schonaeus was born in the small town of Gouda in the county of Holland in 1541.1 He studied at Leuven University before retur- ning north, where he was appointed rector of the Latin school of Haarlem, where he died in 1611. An important fact in his otherwise rather unre- markable biography is that he remained a Catholic throughout his life.
Although he witnessed the transformation of his town and region into a Calvinistic bulwark, he continued as rector of the school. His reputation as a schoolmaster and an author probably saved his career.
Most of his seventeen plays were on biblical themes.2 As a playwright he stood in a venerable tradition. Since the third decade of the sixteenth century schoolmasters in the Low Countries had written plays with the double pedagogical aim of instilling moral lessons and teaching good
1 On Schonaeus, see: H. van de Venne, Cornelius Schonaeus Goudanus (1540-1611).
Part 1 Leven en werk van de Christelijke Terentius. Nieuwe bijdragen tot de geschie- denis van de Latijnse Scholen van Gouda, ’s-Gravenhage en Haarlem (Voorthuizen:
Florivallis, 2001); Part 2 Vriendenkring (2002); Part 3 Bibliography (2004; also published as nos. 15.1, 15.2 and 15.3 in the Haerlem-reeks). The bibliography has also been published previously as ‘Cornelius Schonaeus 1541-1611. A Bibliography of his Printed Works’, Humanistica Lovaniensia, 32 (1983), 367-433; 33 (1984), 206-314; 34B (1985), 1-113; 35 (1986), 219-283. See also M. Verweij, Het thema Tobias in het Neolatijnse schooltoneel in de Nederlanden in de 16de eeuw. De Tobaeus van Cornelius Schonaeus (1569) en de Tobias van Petrus Vladeraccus (1598) (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven, 1993), pp. 66-281.
2 The titles of these dramas are: Tobaeus, Nehemias, Saulus, Naaman, Iosephus, Iuditha, Susanna, Daniel, Triumphus Christi, Typhlus, Pentecoste, Ananias, Baptistes, Dyscoli, Pseudostratiotae, Cunae and Vitulus. The last four plays are not religious. Full bibliographical details can be found in Van de Venne (see n. 1).
96 Michiel Verweij
Latin speech. If school drama played a role in the discussion of the reformation in contemporary Germany, this was not the case in the Low Countries. Most schoolmasters were decent Catholics in the service of decent Catholic, though tolerant and certainly not fanatic, city govern- ments. The religious discussion took place on other levels. Moreover, in the second half of the sixteenth century, Protestants in the Low Countries were not so much Lutherans as Calvinists, and the Calvinist preachers were opposed to theatre in all its forms. It is then not to be wondered that Schonaeus’s successors in Haarlem avoided anything relating to dramatic performance.
From the beginning of the production of Neo-Latin school drama in the Low Countries two main principles have been central to it. First, language was based on Plautus and Terence. Secondly, most subjects were borrowed from the Bible. The main reason for this choice of contents was arguably the additional pedagogical use found in the biblical texts, not so much an attitude of criticism towards classical literature, as has been sometimes suggested.3 There is, however, a marked difference between the way earlier playwrights handled these themes, and their treatment by Schonaeus and his contemporaries: the earlier authors like Guilielmus Gnapheus (1493-1568) and Macropedius (1486-1558), Schonaeus’s most important predecessor in the Low Countries, were far more liberal, including scenes set in taverns and brothels, seemingly without hesita- tion; the overall atmosphere was freer, somewhat more optimistic, more joyful, funnier, whereas school drama from the latter half of the sixteenth century was far more serious. The tone typical of a secondary school that is so prominent in an author like Macropedius is almost absent in Scho- naeus: besides the growing importance of moralisation, the general tone became more tragic than comic. This was undoubtedly due to the general religious and political atmosphere of the time.
In this article I should like to discuss two aspects of Schonaeus’s work.
First the influence of Terence on his language and metre. Then the struc- tural devices Schonaeus used to construct his plays: the latter perhaps show less Terentian influence. In doing so, I hope to shed some light on the actual way Schonaeus made use of Terence and of the classical tradi- tion to write his plays, as well as on the differences between his plays
3 Cf. J.A. Parente, Religious Drama and the Humanist Tradition. Christian Theater in Germany and in the Netherlands 1500-1680, Studies in the History of Christian Thought, 39 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), p. 7.
Cornelius Schonaeus as a Playwright 97 and this classical tradition. I will illustrate both aspects through a short analysis of Schonaeus’s first play, the Tobaeus, from 1569.
When looking for Terentian or classical reminiscences, one should distinguish between two major categories, the true quotations on the one hand and formulas from comic language on the other. However, it is not always easy to make an exact distinction. Schonaeus probably knew Terence by heart; if not, he must have had a sort of notebook which he was able to consult with an almost improbable degree of efficiency. In the Tobaeus, a piece of 1828 lines, I have recognised 337 true quotations, which is roughly one in every five lines. Apart from these quotations, one finds many short expressions and formulas, which may very well have been borrowed from ancient comedy, but which occur more frequently in Plautus and Terence, so that an exact location is hard to give. To this category belong expressions such as: curabitur (Tobaeus, l. 145), occidi, quid ni? (l. 351), habeo quod mandem (l. 159), plane periit (l. 495), and so on. Moreover, many of these expressions consist of only one word. To the same class belong some typical grammatical phenomena, such as the use of diminutives: for example, actiuncula (Tobaeus, l. 2 and 39), corpus- culum (l. 235 and 1439), constitutiuncula (l. 290), adulescentulus (l. 33, 757, 1101, 1175, 1619, 1654 and 1807), pauxillulum (l. 1412); similarly the replacement of the simple future by the futurum exactum, passive infini- tives ending on -ier (e.g. epularier (Tobaeus, l. 250), ominarier (l. 370), conviciarier (l. 527), tergiversarier (l. 1062), obliviscier (l. 483) etc.), the use of archaic forms like siem, siet, faxit, ipsus, etc. All these forms, as well as the frequent use of interjections, belong to comic language, in the sense that they are archaic. Indeed, sixteenth-century humanists, in recognising them as occurring mostly in Plautus and Terence, read them as comic, so that most authors of school drama used these forms and expressions essentially with the intention of giving their text a certain comic flavour.
Schonaeus is somewhat different in the sense that apart from using these expressions he employs many more elaborate quotations, which by their size and special character are clearly recognisable as such. In that sense, many passages of his work have a distinctly Terentian flavour. Of course, the main problem here is the definition of the term ‘quotation’:
I would suggest that that term should refer to a combination of words borrowed from a distinctly identifiable passage, that can or cannot have been adapted to the new semantic or grammatical surroundings. There is yet another problem for the identification: Schonaeus did not use our
98 Michiel Verweij
standard critical editions dating from the ninteenth or twentieth centuries.
In a number of cases it is clear that he quotes from a different state of the text.4
While many passages have a clearly Terentian outlook, there are scenes which have almost no comic allusions. In fact, and this may be of some importance, most Terentian expressions occur in scenes of a lighter, more mundane character, whereas monologues which serve to sketch a character or to develop a moral consideration have a far more classical appearance. Apparently, Schonaeus used his Terentian supply for specific dramatic occasions, so that his style became adapted to the contents and the purpose of the scene. This adaptation to decorum, with the general characteristics of refinement, purity and charm, is exactly the qualifica- tion critics have always attributed to Schonaeus’s model, Terence. Puns and other linguistic toys are to be found far less in Schonaeus than in, for example, Macropedius, who looked more at Plautus: in his quotations, but also in the general atmosphere of his language and style, Schonaeus is a Terentian.
The same Terentian vein can be seen in Schonaeus’s metrics. In general, school drama can be divided into two categories: those with choruses and those without. A chorus permits a larger number of pupils to participate, to the potential gratification of both their parents and the school. In ancient Roman comedy, however, the genre did not exist in its Neo-Latin form, although the Plautine cantica may furnish a suggestion. Nevertheless, many Neo-Latin playwrights, like Macropedius, used them. Schonaeus is strictly Terentian in excluding choruses from his plays. Metre has a second dimension. Neo-Latin playwrights had two options: either they tried to imitate and use classical Roman metres or they replaced them by a more simplified scheme, using iambic trimeters instead of senarii.
The latter was done by Macropedius, who wrote his pieces essentially in iambic trimeters. The difference rests mainly in the substitutions of the short syllables. Macropedius seems to have permitted a substitution of the short syllable in an iambus only in the odd feet, thereby creating a scheme of three double iambi, the last of which normally has to be a pure iambus.5 Schonaeus, however, has substitutions in all cases. His metre
4 I would strongly recommend that editors of modern critical editions also pay atten- tion to branches of manuscripts that do not seem important from a purely critical point of view and to early printed editions. Most editions tend to focus on an approach of the original text or on a manuscrit de base, but in cultural history it is the text in the form in which it actually circulated that counts.
5 Cf. R.C. Engelberts, Georgius Macropedius. Bassarus (Tilburg: H. Gianotten,
Cornelius Schonaeus as a Playwright 99 is less regular than that of Macropedius, but more in line with classical Roman comedy. Once again, he is more orthodoxly Terentian. Apart from iambic senarii, one finds a number of different iambic and trochaic feet, although there are some minor differences, such as the use of σκάζοντες or the fact that Schonaeus’s iambic septenarii are not, as in Roman comedy, catalectic octonarii, but real septenarii.
By way of an example I will analyse a fragment of Act II, Scene 4 from the Tobaeus, a scene which shows a concentration of Terentian quota- tions. As some scenes abound in these and other scenes do not, this scene is not entirely representative of every aspect of Schonaeus’s style, but it will serve to give an idea.
An Quid consolare me, fili? An quaequam usquam gentium
mulier aeque misera est? 590
Ti Bono animo esto. Misera non est nisi quam sua culpa miseram facit.
An Eheu, nulli ego plura acerba esse arbitror ex coniugio feminae unquam oblata quam mihi.
Ti Mater, lachrymas mitte et quoniam id fieri quod vis, non potest,
velis id quod possit. 595
An Non possum aedepol.
Ti Ah, potes:
in Deo omnis spes sit nobis.
An Recte tu quidem:
si modo qui nos respiciat, quisquam Deus est uspiam.
Ti Ah, non te cohibes, mater? Tene istud loqui!
Nonne grave crimen atque summa impietas est?
An Nisi
Deo invisi essemus, non nos ad hunc afflictaret modum. 600 Ti Atqui hinc ego nos illi curae esse auguror.
An Eandem quoque tuus pater mihi saepe cantiunculam occinit. At pol quidem non adeo stulta sum
ut facile patiar id mihi persuaderier.
Ti Tamen hoc, mater, verum est et ipsa re experiere propediem. 605
stica et Reformatorica, 42 (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1988), pp. 129-132; M. Verweij, Petrus Vladeraccus. Tobias (1598), Supplementa Humanistica Lovaniensia, 17 (Leuven: Leuven
100 Michiel Verweij
An Ridiculum. Quid mihi nunc adfers, cur expectem aut sperem hoc malum
aliquando in melius posse commutarier?
An Why are your trying to console me, my son? Or has there ever been somewhere a
woman as miserable as me? 590
Ti Be of good cheer. Only she is miserable who is so of her own fault.
An Oh, I don’t think that ever woman had more bitterness from her marriage than I had.
Ti Mother, stop your tears and as things cannot be as you want,
want them as they can be. 595
An I cannot, really!
Ti Oh yes, you can:
all our hope is in God.
An You’re right:
if there is a God who looks at us.
Ti Oh, pull yourself together, mother! stop talking like that!
Isn’t this a grave sin and utter impiety?
An If God
didn’t hate us, he would not afflict us in this way. 600 Ti But I think that just for that he takes care of us.
An You sing the same singsong as your father.
But I am not that stupid
that I let myself be persuaded that easily.
Ti But that, mother, is true and you will see so for yourself very soon. 605 An Ridiculous. What can you offer me why I should hope or expect
that this bad luck
can ever be changed into something positive?
This scene gives a lively conversation between Anna, the wife of Tobit, and her son Tobias, who is to leave home to retrieve some money which had been given in deposit in Media. Tobit had become blind when fulfil- ling his religious duties. Anna, his wife, has been thrown into doubting everything, and the fact that she will be deprived of her son drives her
Cornelius Schonaeus as a Playwright 101 to the blackest despair. At first glance, such a scene does not seem very fit to make use of comic material. However, apart from the two passive infinitives on -ier: persuaderier (l. 604) and commutarier (l. 607) and the diminituve cantiunculam (l. 602), one finds various expressions which fall under the category of ‘comic language’ identified earlier in this essay:
bono animo es (l. 590) is a very frequent expression, both in Plautus and Terence;6 recte is found very frequently in Roman comedy;7 ridiculum is more of a problem, as it does occur twice in Terence (Phorm., 901 and Ad., 676), but not in Plautus. In the last case we are hovering on the distinc- tion between a proper quotation and a more general use of formulas, but a large part of the problem is created by questions of definition, not of contents. The same holds true for In deo omnis spes (l. 596), which has two Terentian equivalents (Phorm., 139 and Ad., 455). In addition to these observations, it should be noted that this passage literally abounds with unequivocal Terentian quotations. Quid consolare me (l. 589) quotes Ter., Hec., 293: ‘quid consolare me? an quisquam usquam gentiumst aeque miser?’; plura acerba (l. 592): Ter., Hec., 281: ‘nemini plura acerba credo esse ex amore homini umquam oblata’; mater, lachrymas mitte (l. 594):
Ad., 335: ‘era, lacrumas mitte’; id fieri quod vis (l. 594): An., 305-306:
‘quaeso edepol, Charine, quoniam non potest id fieri quod vis, | id velis quod possit’; non te cohibes (l. 598): Heaut., 919: ‘non tu te cohibes?’;
tene istud loqui (l. 598) matches exactly Heaut., 921; eandem cantiun- culam occinit (l. 602): Phorm., 495: ‘cantilenam eandem canis’; verum est et ipsa re (l. 605): Ad., 888: ‘atqui, Syre, hoc verumst et ipsa re expe- riere propediem’; and lastly, quid mihi nunc adfers (l. 606): Phorm., 1025:
‘quid mi hic adfers quam ob rem exspectem aut sperem porro non fore?’.
Although this scene is not strictly representative of the play as a whole, and is not found in the first edition of 1569, but occurs only from 1580 onwards, it demonstrates extremely clearly the Terentian interest; most scenes are less rich in Terentian quotations.
If Schonaeus’s work gives the impression of being relatively classical with regards to its language, the same can be said, in a way, of its struc- ture. It is well known that ancient drama preferred not to show much
6 Plautus: Am., 671 and 1131; As., 638; Aul., 732 and 787; Cist., 73 and 591; Merc., 531;
Mil., 1143, 1206 and 1342; Rud., 679; Pseud., 322. Terence: Heaut., 822; Eun., 84; Phorm., 965; Ad., 284, 511, 543 and 696.
7 Cf. G. Lodge, Lexicon Plautinum, 2 vols (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962 = Leipzig:
Teubner, 1901-33), II, 536-537; P. McGlynn, Lexicon Terentianum, 2 vols (London and Glasgow: Blackie, 1963-67), II, 122-23.
102 Michiel Verweij
action on the stage. Most events have already taken place and if some- thing of importance occurs – better known, perhaps, in tragedy, but also true for comedy – it is generally a messenger who tells the story. Thus in Terence, most real action has taken place before the actual play begins:
the action on the stage limits itself to the dialogues of the actors. It is in the field of human relations, of expectations, deceit, and deceptions that Terentian comedy exists. This is different in Plautus, who is concerned more with dramatic action. Whereas most of the earlier Neo-Latin school drama, such as the early pieces of Macropedius, does not hesitate to include some action in the scene, Schonaeus, in keeping with the general influence of Terence, shows himself rather reluctant to do so. The problem is, however, that unlike classical comedy where the dialogues were the action, in a certain way, the Bible story is not essentially made up of witty dialogues, but either of the story itself (that is, of action) or of moralising and pious conversations and monologues. This results in the plays’ rather static quality, which closer study and scrutiny reveals as, at least, partly intentional. Schonaeus seems to represent a classical dramaturgy in which the accent is on words, not deeds. In this, he is arguably far more modern than both Macropedius and most of his contemporaries. This may partly explain the longevity of Schonaeus’s appeal, which waned only towards the end of the eighteenth century.
The most salient example in the Tobaeus of Schonaeus’s unwillingness to present real action on the stage is the end of the play. The biblical book of Tobit illustrates the reward of two persons who, despite their devotion and observance of religious duties, have been victims of fate. Tobit has become blind while burying a dead Jew, who had been murdered in the street. He sends his son off to retrieve some money from an old friend in Media. His son is accompanied by the archangel Raphael, who has been sent by God to solve Tobit’s problems and Sara’s, a young woman of Media whose seven bridegrooms have all been strangled by the demon Asmodaeus. Raphael suggests that Tobias marry Sara. Through his chastity Tobias finds a way to vanquish the demon. At the end of the story Raphael reveals himself and all ends happily. Schonaeus omits this last scene, which includes the healing of Tobit, and the revelation and ascen- sion of Raphael into heaven. The play closes with the announcement of what will happen within (that is, offstage), but the actual fulfilling of this prophecy is not shown – the play misses its end. Perhaps this was done partly to avoid religious problems in view of the Calvinist minority and the delicate situation of Haarlem in those days, but when the play was
Cornelius Schonaeus as a Playwright 103 presented for the first time, Haarlem was officially still a Catholic town.
In the original edition of 1569 there is a final scene which disappeared in subsequent editions (1580, 1592 and 1598), in which a servant relates Tobit’s final healing and Raphael’s revelation. But even there, nothing is shown, and the play ends with a messenger’s tale. In the later editions, and that has become the state of the text as it spread over Europe, the play ends lacking even this tale, but only with the prophecy of Tobit’s healing.
A similar situation is seen in the defeat of Asmodaeus in the beginning of Act IV. Schonaeus shows the young couple praying just before they go to sleep (IV, 1). Then Raguel, Sara’s father, makes his appearance and bewails his decision to give his daughter to young Tobias (IV, 2), whereas in the following scene Raguel’s wife sends a servant to see if all is well (IV, 3). Asmodaeus does not appear in the play. When Petrus Vlade- raccus (1571-1618) dramatised the same story thirty years later (Tobias, 1598), he presented this part of the story in a very different manner. In Vladeraccus’s play, Asmodaeus is shown three times in the guise of a hideous monster and his defeat is shown vigorously, with Raphael binding him with chains. Clearly, Schonaeus’s reluctance to present anything so dramatic seems a deliberate choice.
Instead of this captivating action, Schonaeus attempts to build his story on the characters of his protagonists. In the Tobaeus, he stresses three figures using two techniques. To begin with the techniques: a third of the Tobaeus consists of monologues, an indication of its tendency to more static drama. These monologues are sometimes dramatically motivated, as the story of a messenger or a protagonist who relates (rather than acts) an event from the story. In other cases these monologues serve to develop a point of moralisation or to develop a character by giving his or her inmost thoughts and feelings. It is not always easy to draw a clear line, as these thoughts may serve for moralisation as well. A second technique used by Schonaeus is what one could call a discussion scene, in which two protagonists stand opposed to one another and have a fierce argument about the situation. In these scenes elements of moralisation are often part of the purpose: the articulation of contrasting views allows the author to develop various issues linked with them and to enliven this development through the debate. These scenes are among the most enjoyable for us, but sometimes Schonaeus lightly modified the characters of the various figures to make them more suitable for his purpose.
One of the characteristics of Terence’s plays is that the action emerges from the characters of his dramatic figures. Schonaeus is at least partly
104 Michiel Verweij
successful in his imitation of this. However, it often seems that the deve- lopment of the character tends to replace any real action, an effect, no doubt, in part due to one-third of the play being monologue. Consider that of Raguel during the night after the wedding of Tobias and Sara, for example: here, Raguel, who often delivers monologues, utters his doubts and his sense of guilt for having permitted the wedding which is bound to have a bad end. Raguel appears to be of a rather weak disposition, doubtful and grief stricken because of what happened to his daughter (who is on stage far less). It is through his complaints that we see the deve- lopment of this element of the biblical story, while the countering of this complaint gives fuller weight to the successful end of the bridegroom’s night. Raguel creates a kind of suspension in his monologues, which is then relieved by the real end. In the same way we see Tobaeus (the father) offering his devout monologues, which not only have a moralising end in themselves but also function structurally to sharpen anticipation of the outcome in the audience – it knows that God never punishes the good and rewards the bad. These moralising monologues are a proper starting point for the story, just because they reflect the high moral and religious standards of the protagonist.
In contrast, the character of Tobaeus’s wife, Anna, has been deve- loped in a different way. Like Raguel, she is less significant in the biblical account, but Schonaeus has seized on her dramatic potential, although he changes her character slightly. In the Bible, Anna goes out to work after Tobit has been blinded; one day she brings back a little he-goat which she has received, but Tobit reproaches her for it, as he thinks it had been stolen. Then Anna pours forth her anger, reproaching him that he is only righteous in other men’s eyes. In the Tobaeus, however, the episode of the little he-goat has been dropped: Anna is a negative counterpoint to Tobaeus, whom she reproaches for the apparent fruitlessness of his devout conduct. If Anna could be said to be right in some respect in the Bible, in the Tobaeus she certainly is not. Even if one could argue that her main drive in the rest of the story is the love for her son, Tobias, this is not presented as unequivocally positive. This is reflected very clearly by the fact that Tobias junior, on his return home, runs to his father and almost completely neglects his mother. The character of Anna is developed either in her monologues, when she is heaving deep sighs for Tobias’s return, or in sharp dialogues with her son or her husband.
In this way, Schonaeus manages to use certain figures as central elements in his play and, what is still more important, as structural devices.
Cornelius Schonaeus as a Playwright 105 Tobaeus is the central figure of Act I, whereas the continuous presence of Anna unifies Act II and parts of Acts I and V, and Raguel dominates Acts III and IV, as well as other parts of Act V. Such unifying figures are essential in a play that dramatises a biblical story lacking the three clas- sical unities. The book of Tobit relates a journey, which by that fact alone transgresses the unities of place and time, whereas the double thread of the stories of Tobit and Sara violates the unity of action. Although it is true that these unities were not strictly observed in the sixteenth century, my point is that the story of the book of Tobit is so opposed to any drama- tisation of classical inspiration that Schonaeus had to make some serious efforts to preserve any form of theatrical unity. It pleads in favour of his talent that he succeeded to any degree in this, his first play.
The Tobaeus was to be followed by 16 more plays. Schonaeus would continue to work along the same lines, combining good Terentian Latin with moralising content in plays built on the development of charac- ters rather than action. Sometimes the story he chooses is insufficiently dramatic, but in the Tobaeus this is no problem. Schonaeus was known then, as now, as the Terentius Christianus. That he earned this title mostly on account of his systematic use of Terentian phrases and expressions, both in the form of more or less typically comic expressions and real quotations, has been understood for some time. However, an analysis of the means he used to attain his dramatic ends shows that he was a clas- sicist in other fields of the art of drama as well. His use of character, his reluctance to show fervent or vigorous action on the stage, his preference for words, both in monologues and in sometimes vehement dispute, show him equally to be a Terentian playwright who shared many more of his model’s characteristics. The difference essentially lies in the moralising trend and in a more static nature of his plays. In comparison with his predecessors in the field of Neo-Latin school drama, he can even appear remarkably modern, and was considered so for a long time.
E-mail: michiel.verweij@kbr.be
